Trump, Clinton, Political Parties, and Labels... Evil Confining Labels

As unpopular among my friends as it is, I'll start by acknowledging that, similar to the title of this post, Sanders isn't going to make it to the Democratic nomination.  Is Clinton cold in saying that she's got this locked up?  Not really.  Barring something extreme, like her being indicted in the next 2 weeks or something coming out in the next couple months that drives the super delegates to go against what the Democrats have already voted in favor of, Clinton is the nominee.  Sanders would need 70% of the remaining regular delegates just to tie the Clinton in regular delegates.  Now... 70% isn't impossible, but New Jersey and New Mexico have closed primaries and Sanders isn't winning closed primaries... and then there are the super delegates.  Even if Sanders can manage to get 70% of the remaining votes, he still needs to convince super delegates to switch sides, and switch sides heavily.  If Clinton gets 13% of the vote and the super delegates remain where they are, she wins the nomination... that's right, she needs 13% of remaining votes and for super delegates (read Democratic establishment... i.e. the camp that wants Clinton) to maintain their announced positions.

Alright, enough upsetting blog post, let's move on to something similarly depressing.  Trump is the Republican nominee.  Why is this depressing to me?  Is it just what it says about the right wing of our country?  Clearly that's all it could be because if you listen to the news, Trump is awful and has no chance of winning.  That would seem great except for that the news has no feel for how Trump got this far in the first place.  They've been talking about how Trump is horrible and therefore people are going to turn on him any moment now.  So, the good news, Trump has severe unfavorable ratings.  The bad news is that so does Clinton.  The good news is that just about every demographic hates Trump.  The bad news is that the Right hates Clinton just as equally as many hate Trump.  But there is hope.  The demographics... thank goodness for demographics... if they stay true to their past support patterns, the Democrats will have an easy time winning, IF they get out the vote.  And there's the wild card.  Who will get out the vote.  Both sides can play up anger and hatred of the other side.  My fear is that we'll turn toward actual political positions and Trump will reveal that he's a moderate, just like Clinton... and potentially in some ways to the left of Clinton.  This one's really confusing to me to be honest and I don't know where people will turn.  I know that I don't want Trump if only because of the statements he's made in the race and how he's come this far.  Clinton's a centrist, slightly right of center actually, but she's pretending to be to the left because of Sanders.... but now comes the pivot for both candidates.  ~sigh~

Ok., one last thing before I go... people are making a lot of hay over political parties and the nomination process.  I keep hearing pundits say that people shouldn't be so upset at the parties because they're private organizations.  One thing that has been pointed out is that people who are independents because they don't want to be labeled are upset because they haven't been able to vote.  I can see both sides of this, but here are two things to consider:

1. The news is saying that people are upset at the political parties because of the closed primaries.    That's not all we're upset about.  There's also the structuring of the debates so that most Democrats wouldn't watch them and therefore wouldn't be able to see the contrast between Clinton and Sanders as readily.  The political parties have more to do with who gets nominated than just the primaries themselves.  The Democratic Party leadership has been supporting Clinton from the start.  This is what angers Sanders supporters, not the primaries, but the way that the party leadership has been openly against Sanders.
2. The primaries on the Democratic side have fallen into the following pattern: Sanders wins states that allow independents to have a voice and have caucuses.  Clinton wins states that don't allow independents to vote and have elections.  Let's take out the last part of each sentence and focus in on the first.  Independents are leaning toward Sanders and are upset about not being able to vote in closed election states.  What's equally interesting, if not more so, is that independents tend to vote the same way from election to election.  Some vote Republican every time, others vote Democratic every time.  So, why are they independent?  They say it's because they don't like labels, they don't like being tied down to anything.  I've said this before and I'm saying it again, get over it.  You want to have a say in the politics but your state is overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats or Republicans and therefore your vote in the general isn't as powerful?  Your state has closed primaries?  Fine, pick your side and vote in the primary.  Labeling yourself as a Democrat doesn't mean you agree with the establishment, it just means that in the Primary you get to vote in the Democratic Primary.  Done.  Fin.  That's it.  You're not confining yourself.  It's not like you're saying you're a straight, male, Catholic... you're saying what party you're affiliated with, i.e. which side you're going to try to have an impact on.  Oh, and if you're going to tell me that by refusing to pick aside, the establishments will pay attention and change their ways... if that were the case, would they not have heard and changed by now based on people not voting?  Abstinence from the political process won't change those that have power over it, it never has, it never will.

Was Trump Actually Right?

Last week, Trump told Chris Matthews that, if abortion were illegal, women getting abortions should be punished.  There were two paths of thinking this led me down:

1. When should the person purchasing the illegal act/item be punished versus when should it be the provider?  In most cases, I would say it's the provider: drugs, guns, murder.  There are a few where it should be the purchaser instead, the primary one that comes to mind for a potential is prostitution.  There's also the potential for the purchaser and the provider should both be punished.  In the case of abortion, there's an interesting predicament, which leads me to thought-path #2.
2. Why do pro-life people think that abortion should be outlawed.  My understanding is that they feel it's murder.  They feel that personhood begins significantly earlier than I do.  IF you feel that abortion is murder (I do not), why would you not feel that the woman seeking the abortion should be punished?  The pro-life movement seemed to instantly distance itself from Trumps statement and even lash out at him for it, Cruz included.  So, I ask Cruz, if person A brings someone to be murdered by person B, is person A not going to be charged with accessory, at minimum?  So, how is the person within the woman different from the person outside the woman?  I feel it necessary to remind everyone reading this that I do not believe the thing that is growing within a woman is a person, I believe abortion is not murder, and therefore the doctor is not murdering someone and the woman getting the abortion is not an accessory.... but I'm curious what the distinction Cruz makes is.

False reasoning and punditry

I hate false reasoning and false logic.  Sanders won 2 of 3 primaries yesterday... does that mean he won yesterday's contest?  No.  He gained fewer delegates than Clinton did, and that's what matters.  I'm hoping he starts picking up more delegates than Clinton and starts to catch up, but this hasn't happened yet and claiming victory when there isn't one is like Bush's mission accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier.

I heard yesterday on NPR about how pundits aren't discouraged or upset about being wrong all the time because they're not looking at how things are but instead looking at how they want them to be.  I understand why they do it.  They want people to believe in the goals they have.  For example, if people think that Sanders is winning, he's more likely to win in the future, so you tell people he's winning.  This why I could never be a pundit, I want to analyze how things are and look at the potential.

There's reason to hope, but winning 2 out of 3 states while losing the delegate count fight isn't it.

I've also seen people saying that the states that Clinton has been winning, for the most part, are states that vote Republican in the general and this fact by itself means that they matter less.  This just simply isn't true because the primary is decided by delegates and the states that have voted thus far have just as many delegates as they would if they voted Democrat in the general.

There's reason to hope, but it's not because the states that have voted thus far don't matter.

There's reason to hope, though.  I have the hope that states that are more liberal, those that vote Democrat in the general elections, will have a heavier turnout for the more liberal candidate.  Sanders is more liberal than Clinton on her most liberal day, and significantly more liberal than than her record shows her to be in general.  Therefore, one can reason that, potentially, just maybe, perhaps, there will be higher turn out in places where people may be more enthusiastic about Sanders.  I'm not being sarcastic in my hedging though.  We have yet to see the true groundswell that Sanders needs in order to win the nomination.

Pundits and news reporters are touting Clinton's overwhelming number of delegates and saying it will be difficult for Sanders to catch up.  But this, too, is overstating things and blinding us from the truth. Clinton currently has 663 delegates based on primaries and 458 super delegates.  Sanders has 459 delegates and 22 super delegates.  Super delegates can change their votes before the convention begins, so really, right now, the difference between the two is 204 delegates.... and there are over 3,000 left for them to split up.  All that said, Sanders needs to pick up a lot of delegates before the super delegates will start to change sides.

I wrote this the afternoon of Sunday, March 6... the day of Maine's Democratic Party primary.  Maine is now reporting at 80% that Sanders has won 64% to 35%, making the delegate count difference about 8 delegates less.  If Sanders can pull this kind of win over Clinton is some of the other, larger, Democratic footholds, he stands a chance.

Super Tuesday 2016!

Super Tuesday is upon us and registered voters in 11 states have a couple decisions to make:  1) Am I voting and 2) if so, who am I voting for.

I'm hoping that the answers for many will be "yes, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders"... which shouldn't be surprising to anybody, but you might not agree with me... so let's go through your options.

If you want someone who is anti-government and anti-religious freedom, you probably want to vote for the Texan from Canada: Ted Cruz.  He is hated by everybody in Congress... no kidding... and is all about bringing down the government in any way he can.  By the way, politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths 21% of the time and tells mostly false or even more false 67% of the time... so if you like a liar, he's a decent choice.

If you want someone who is anti-government and not white, you probably want to vote for the youngling of the crowd: Marco Rubio... and he even has more of a chance at being nominated than 2 others that are running.  Politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths a whopping 35% and tells mostly false or even more false only 42% of the time... so if you want someone that one third of the time tells the truth and boldly lies only half the time... he's your man.

If you want someone who is a Democrat but is a war-hawk, economically-moderate, and who Republicans hate more than the Socialist in the race, vote for Clinton (no, seriously, I know Republicans who will vote for Sanders before Trump but will vote for Trump before Clinton).  If you want the Democrat who is most electable in the general, that's not Clinton based on all the polls.  By the way, Clinton tells the truth significantly more than she lies, so that's a positive... 51% for mostly truths/truths and 28% bold lies... including 1% pants-on-fire lies.

If you want someone who truly believes in liberal ideals and thinks we should avoid going to war, or if you want someone who can beat any Republican that ends up getting nominated, or if you want someone who doesn't change their stance on a variety of issues every 4 years, vote for Sanders.  To be fair, Sanders only tells the unvarnished truth 47% of the time and lies 32% of the time... but he never lies at a pants-on-fire level.

If you want someone who lies, disparages wide swaths of the public, doesn't think that issues are what we should vote based on, has gone bankrupt (unlike any other candidate listed thus far), and the rest of the world hates even more than Republicans hate Clinton, just stay home.  Seriously though, Trump lies... he lies a lot.  He has a harder time telling the truth than Cruz does with 7% of the time telling the mostly truths and 78% telling mostly falsehoods with a full 20% of those being full-on pants-on-fire lies.  He's insulted Mexicans, Women, residents of Iowa, immigrants... and that's just the wide generalizations.  And when asked if he would disavow white supremacist supporters, his response was that he didn't know David Duke... whom he had tweeted about previously... no, his response was not to say "white supremacists are racist thugs and I don't need support from the likes of them", which I hope most Americans would have thought reasonable.

So... let's see if this follows... If you want Trump to win, congrats, your job is done, stay home, nobody cares.  If you want Trump not to win the general, your best approach is probably to vote for Sanders, since polls show that he's the best bet at beating Trump.  If you don't like Sanders because he's too far left, fair enough, vote for Clinton, but don't be surprised when we've got troops on the ground in Syria for a decade.

Super Tuesday matters, go out and vote, but vote informed and thoughtfully.

Sanders vs Clinton... a bit more

If you haven't read my other posts about Clinton and Sanders, go read them... I'm clearly in favor of Sanders... but I'd like to share a bit more of my thoughts on the matter as we come away from the Iowa caucuses and wait with anticipation for the New Hampshire primary.

First, I was provided with a set of links about some issues with Sanders: his supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters; his campaign has suggested or stated that he had endorsements he didn't have; a Super PAC has raised nearly $1m to spend supporting him; he voted in favor of spending bills related to Iraq and Afghanistan.  The person providing me the links was, of course, a Clinton supporter, and was suggesting that this made her doubt him and what he supports.  Now, admittedly, I have not done my thorough research on each of these items, but here's some things to consider:

• His supporters have been nasty to Clinton supporters - This is unfortunate, but as I mentioned in my last post, I'm much more concerned with the politician than his/her supporters.  The article said that this wouldn't normally be of great concern because the rationale Sanders uses for his being able to push things forward if he's elected is that his supporters will be a tidal wave, a political revolution, and therefore what they're like is vitally important.  O.k., but if all his supporters were being this nasty, there would be significantly more news about it.  A quick couple searches does not pull in the number of reports that I would expect if this was a wide-scale issue.
• His campaign has been shifty by suggesting/stating that he has received endorsements he hasn't.  O.k., this is a fair problem to raise.  That said.... really?  A Clinton supporter is going to complain about someone being dishonest and shifty?  I mean, not for nothing, but ... a Clinton supporter?  I mean, o.k., but, wow.
• A Super PAC has raised $2.3m to support Sanders.  O.k., let's start with some numbers, shall we?  Clinton's outside support, as of the end of January, have raised $48m (roughly 20 times as much as those supporting Sanders), and spent $12m (roughly 10 times as much as those supporting Sanders).  Let's move on from that to discuss not just that the amounts are dwarfed, but that the money coming into these support groups is from vastly different sources.  The Super PAC supporting Sanders mostly gets small donations from middle class workers (it's National Nurses United... yep, it's a nurses union).  The Super PACs supporting Clinton get most of their money from very large donations (98% of the money raised in the second half of 2015 for Priorities USA Action was in the form of $100,000+ donations... I don't think most nurses have that kind of spare cash).  To be perfectly honest, I don't really have a problem with a politician having a Super PAC while saying they're in favor of removing Super PACs from politics... provided they have a history of being in support of political finance reform... but I also feel like the Super PACs in this race are in line with the fundraising the campaigns are doing themselves.  Sanders' campaign is getting predominantly small donations while Clinton's is getting larger donations.  So... long story short, Sanders has the support of a Super PAC which in turn is supported by working people... Clinton has the support of much larger Super PACs which are in turn supported by much richer people.  Thus, the argument point is awared to Sanders.
• Sanders voted in favor of spending bills for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  I haven't looked into this very closely, but I know he voted against going to war in the first place.  My feeling is that once you're at war, voting in support of the spending bills is acceptable.  Furthermore, are we really talking about how it's a problem that Sanders supported war?  Really?  This from someone supporting Clinton?  Clinton, the war hawk?  REALLY?  O.k., well, if I'm in favor of trying to do everything we can to maintain peace, and I am, why would I vote for a war hawk over someone who supported some war spending bills but has been a vocal opponent to wars in general?!?

So, we've got 4 points provided against Sanders, 3 of which would be bigger points against Clinton and one of which is unfortunate but I believe blown a bit out of proportion.

I'd also like to point out Clinton's own 2 points against Sanders:

• Clinton says Sanders won't be able to get what he wants accomplished but she knows how to get things done.  First off, as First Lady, she couldn't get health care reform done.  Secondly, she's viciously hated by Republicans and this leads me to believe that she would have a harder time getting more conservative things done than Sanders would getting somewhat liberal things done.
• In response to Sanders saying she was the establishment candidate, Clinton said that Sanders is the only person that could label her as an establishment candidate because she's a woman running to be the first female President of the US.  Well, let's compare the two candidates on the Democratic side then, shall we?  One has a ton of support from establishment players in the party, the other doesn't.  One has been in the lead and the DNC has been scheduling debates at times that people wouldn't get to see the two face off.  One is moderate, the other is somewhat extreme left wing.  Without knowing that the "one" in each of these statements is female, it's very clear that the "one" is the establishment candidate.  I'm sorry, I don't care that she's a woman.  That is NOT sufficient reason to vote for her nor is it reason enough to believe that she's not the establishment candidate between the two of them.  Hell, the first comment, that one about most of the political players supporting her, that one element is enough to indicate she's the establishment candidate.  Give me a break.

So... New Hampshire, get to the polls on Tuesday and back Sanders as our nominee for President of the United States!

Sanders for President... because he's honest? ... no, because he's f'ing Liberal!

So, I heard the other day some of Sanders' supporters talking about why they're supporting him and it made me uneasy.  Why?  Because it sounded exactly like the Tea Party and the supporters of Trump.  Stuff like "he's being honest", "he's telling it how it is", "he means what he says"... and worse... "we must take back America" and "make America great again"... those last two being actual quotes I specifically remember... ugh... just ugh.

Seriously, who are we taking America back from this time?  Are we taking it back from blacks?  Wait, no, that's who the Tea Party are taking it back from.  We're taking America back from corporate America... thus proving that corporate America is black and Liberal, right?  Can we come up with our own catch phrases at least?  I mean, if for no other reason than to prevent us from using the catch phrases of the conservatives who are promoting nearly opposite ideals?  How about "we want to overthrow corporate tyranny?"

And "he's being honest" isn't a reason to vote for someone.  I get it, you're disillusioned and sick of the insincerity, but at least vote someone who claims to be on your side.  "Being honest" has nothing to do with what side you're on.  Trump might be being honest, but he's totally not on the side of the average American.  Hell, he's not on the side of 99% of Americans.  If someone came out and said, "I want to be President because it'll make me feel really amazing about myself," would you vote for them?  I mean, they're being honest, right?  ~sigh~  If you're voting for someone because they're honest, go home and go back to sleep because clearly you don't care about anything that's happening in the world.

I'm still in favor of Sanders though.  I'm just ashamed of some of his supporters.  But Sanders is speaking to my values and is in favor of many of the things I'm in favor of.  One of the most important elements of his plans is strengthening the graduation of our graduated income tax.  He wants to bring the top marginal tax bracket back up above 50%... which means that people making over $10M will get taxed more than 50% on the money they make above and beyond the first $10M... the first $10M will still get taxed lower than 50% just like the rest of us, so don't worry, they're not getting taxed back into the Stone Age or anything of that sort.

But let's talk about Clinton's concerns over whether he will be able to get any of what he wants through Congress.  She's right.  Oh, did you not expect me to agree with her?  Did you expect me to say that he'll get something passed?  Did you expect me to say Clinton's trying to mislead us with regards to the prospects of the political scene changing dramatically just because we elect an old white guy who believes more in Government than the other white guys running for that office (or indeed, more than the white women running for that office)?  No, he has no chance.  Let's be honest, his values are far too left leaning than the Republicans will ever go along with, but at least there might potentially be a debate about the role of Government and there might potentially be a discussion of why he wants things that are different from what the Conservatives want.

Clinton says that she knows how to get things done and that she'll push for smaller improvements but improvements that will actually happen.  First, let's call that for what it is: she's going to ask for middle-of-the-road and conservative bills, not the liberal ideals that Democrats are in favor of... she's just trying to suggest that she's going to go for the most Liberal options that the Conservatives will agree to... seriously?

Ok, and let's get even more honest about this: She won't be able to get anything accomplished either.  Do you remember what Republican leadership said when Obama was elected?  They said they needed to oppose everything he pushed for and ensure that he was a 1-term President. They were aggressive and were able to oppose much of what Obama pushed for and waged a pretty decent war against him that led to both the House and the Senate being in Republican control.  And all that just because Obama is black.  No, I'm not joking about this.  Obama was not spouting Liberalism all over the place, he was middle-of-the-road, just like Clinton, during the Democratic primary season.  Seriously, I remember feeling very disappointed about the outcome and thinking to myself "well, at least he won't be opposed just because he's Hillary Clinton."  And why was I thinking that?  Because Republicans have a vitriolic response to Hillary Clinton.  They hate her.  They hate everything about her.  And it's not really based on her principles either.  So they'll respond to her much the same way they responded to Obama, blocking everything they can even if they would agree with it coming from a Republican President.  And that means that she'll not only being fighting for middle-of-the-road and conservative proposals, but those proposals will be blocked because she backs them, not because of their substance.  At least with Sanders, the reason to fight against him is based in ideology and philosophy.  I can handle an argument over Government, I yearn for an argument over Government... but to bypass that argument and just have 4-8 years of "it's backed by Clinton, kill it" just as we've had 8 years of "it's backed by Obama, kill it"... ~sigh~ enough already.

So, I'm ashamed of many of his supporters, but let's still elect him, because he's the right choice.  Not because he's an old, white man (please don't be swayed by Clinton's "it's time to send a woman to the White House"... see my previous post about what's wrong with that one), but because of the ideals he represents and the fact that he will push for those ideals with all his force, and it's about time those ideals (big Government which is there to help people) are fought for with full weight and conviction by a President.  Let's send Sanders to the White House!

White guys with guns on public land versus blacks without guns on public streets

The free-Bundy protest going on in Oregon is very strange to me when I try to look at it from all sides and analyze the statements being made by various groups.

First of all, every time I hear the leader of this armed self-proclaimed "militia" say "we just want this to end peacefully" I think to myself 2 questions:

1. Then why did you bring guns?
2. Then just leave?

It just seems so inaccurate and insincere.  But I have to realize that this group of people actually thinks the big bad government is going to come and shoot them in the dark of night when nobody is looking.  As ridiculous as that sounds to me, as hard to believe, they believe it and therefore they feel they need to arm themselves, even though the simple act of arming one's self for protection raises the stakes, raises tensions, and increases the chance of an armed stand off.  

There's a reason that peaceful protests, historically, tend to be sans-weapons.  It helps bring people to your cause if you're not being aggressive and instead being passively and politely steadfast.  Bringing a weapon intrinsically adds to your aggressive-level, regardless of how many times you insist the weapons are not meant to be aggressive but instead be defensive.

And then there's the left-wing response: an attempt to compare this protest to other peaceful protests that have happened recently.  Most of the protests have been peaceful, some arrests but no major injuries.  But when it's mostly blacks protesting in their own neighborhoods, they have often been called riots by the media and major politicians.  Sure, there have also been riots, but those have been significantly fewer and smaller than the peaceful marches and gatherings in these communities.  The left then pointed out that in Texas, when several biker gangs had a shootout amongst themselves and with law enforcement, the media called it a brawl... not a riot, a brawl.  People on the left raised the point of the disparity in descriptions and pointed to it as part of the implicit bias/racism we have in the media.  And now, while there has been no violence, people on the left have raised their voices with the belief that the media would have called the "militia groups" something else if they weren't white, maybe mobs, anarchists, armed militants.  Maybe the "occupation" would be called a riot by the media.  Maybe the result of a week-long protest would have been armed confrontation by local, state, and federal law enforcement rather than state and federal law enforcement being nowhere to be seen or heard and the local government officials requesting that the groups leave.  

There has been the explanation that law enforcement considers this protest to be more a kin to scenarios like Wako where armed engagement led to outcomes that reflected negatively on law enforcement in the past, with casualties and such.  This, to me, is an explanation that rings very true.  Of course law enforcement wants to be careful due to these memories of armed conflicts.  Of course they feel the stigma.  That is a reasonable explanation for why they are giving these armed white militants a wide berth.  But that doesn't mean this response isn't intrinsically racist, just because it's rational.  Here's the problem with saying it's reasonable to react differently to the scenario given the past:

1. It indicates that the public's reaction when law enforcement locks down a city, or sections of a city, with riot-gear-armed officers and shooting rock/brick-armed civilians, that the public's reaction to this is not sufficient to be nearly the same as the public's reaction to law enforcement having a confrontation with gun-armed civilians.  Yes, the latter tends to involve deaths, but this is the natural reaction of increased weaponry being brought to the table on the civilians' side since it intensifies the conflict.  Not, I mention the increased weaponry brought by civilians, that's because the weaponry being brought by law enforcement in both scenarios is of a similar level at this point.
2. It indicates that being armed and white is appropriate when protesting while it's been proven by law enforcement's responses (and the public's as well) that being armed and black is completely inappropriate, to the point of allowing a defense of immediate and summary execution of the armed civilians.

The dichotomy is disturbing to me, to say the least.  

I feel for the ranchers who are worried that the big bad government is going to restrict their land usage even further, thus they feel their livelihoods are endangered, but the protest is about people being imprisoned for arson... I'd love to hear someone explain why setting a fire that one did not sufficiently contain to avoid a fire on public lands is reasonable and why people who commit a crime under the law should not be held accountable based on the law and existing mandatory minimums.  I haven't heard them call for an end to mandatory minimums, which are the reason that two ranchers have been sent back to prison (the original sentences were less than the mandatory minimum requirements for the crime committed).

So, when my gut tells me that these people are ridiculous and that law enforcement continues to show racial bias, I think I've provided rational explanation of how my gut, at least in this instance is correct... which is a relief to me, as I do not want to shoot from the hip on these matters (always like to throw in a gun metaphor when appropriate).